Herbert Kroemer – Hyperbolist Extraordinaire

_{February 14, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

If there’s a Nobel Prize for alarmist nincompoopery physicist Herbert Kroemer deserves it. Over on Panda’s Thumb they’re trumpeting this article with its extraordinarily hyperbolic opening claim by Kroemer

The Theory of Intelligent Design, and other attacks on the science of biological evolution, are not merely attacks on the concept of evolution, but attacks on science itself Ã¢â‚¬â€ all of science.

No Herb, ID only attacks bad science and only a rather restricted bit of that in that we attack the claim that evolution is understood to be an unguided, unplanned process as 38 of your Nobel brethren declared in a letter to Kansas.

Pray tell, Herb. Exactly what repeatable test demonstrated that all of evolution over the course of some 3 billion years showed it was unplanned and unguided? I’m all ears, man. Speak right up.

Comments

The word evolution derives from the Latin word evolvo meaning to unroll, like the unrolling or opening of a book, a perfect characterization of the significance inherent in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.John Davison_{February 18, 2006
February
02
Feb
18
18
2006
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

"IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d rather believe Kroemer is simply misinformed and wrote a knee-jerk letter to the editor."

Well, it appears as if ID proponents are the only really informed ones.

No, most of the neoDarwinists who've been in this for long are lying when they conflate ID and special creation. They have no choice. If they admit it isn't religion they have no case against it. Since Kroemer is an ancient physicist and hasn't been involved in this before now I'll presume he simply didn't do his homework before spouting off. -ds

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
KhoiSanX_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

"One would really expect the critic to actually learn about that which he is criticizing. I mean, am I expecting too much?"

I'm sure that he he knew exactly what he was talking about.

Well then, that would make Kroemer one of the "lying scum" that Wesley Elsberry talks about. I'm not sure I'd go that far. I'd rather believe Kroemer is simply misinformed and wrote a knee-jerk letter to the editor. -ds
KhoiSanX_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

John A. Davison, I personally don't believe in any version of molecules-to-an evolution (guided or unguided). However, I try to keep that away from this forum since this is not about if evolution happened, but if biological features and systems are the result of Intelligence or random and unguided forces. I go with the former. (To DaveScott): No problems. I only faced problems last week, and only in one trend, if I can recall correctly.Mats_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

JAD We really need new terms for the debate. When many people hear intelligent design they automatically think it's biblical creation. When many people hear evolution they automatically think it's the chance plus necessitity Darwinian narrative. It is frustrating. Much of the problem appears to be miscommunication.DaveScot_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

One would really expect the critic to actually learn about that which he is criticizing. I mean, am I expecting too much?Scott_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT}

Didn't you get the impression from the article that (1) Kroemer knows very little about ID; and (2) his real problem is in the area of physics where he apparently feels that people who say that the Big Bang and the Creation account are the same thing drive him crazy?PaV_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT}

This article represents lazy thinking -once again detection of design is equated with creationism. This characterisation is so often used against ID that I'm begining to think that it represents an inability to engage in reasoned debate.Maybe even bad science on the part of those such as Kroemer who subscribe to the Materialistic Evolutionary story. Run to the Hills!! I see design!WormHerder_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

mats Very good but please don't say things like "whenever evolution is scientifically challenged." A past evolution is undeniable and such comments create counterproductive reactions from those that equate evolution with the infantile, chance driven, aimless, purposeless version that homozygous atheists still insist on promoting, oblivious to the reality that it has never been demonstrated beyond the production of intraspecific varieties. They can't help it. They were "born that way" or, as I prefer, they were "prescribed" to be stone deaf to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres." It is only the MEANS by which evolution took place that remains unresolved. That it took place is not in question at least for this investigator who is also convinced that it is no longer in progress.John Davison_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

Not only ID attacks all science, but it causes earth quackes, tornados and locust plague. Adding to that, ID causes cancer, AIDS and leucemia.
At a social level, ID increases divorces, causes children to be rude to their parents, and increases criminality.
ID also produces bad music, out dated clothing, and causes your computer to crash every while and then. It makes your computer to be infected with random and unguided virus, while you naturally try to select a working anti-virus.
Oh! And it causes nightmares and athlet's foot. IT causes bad driving and causes skin rash. Apart from that, it's rather cool.

PS: Don't you just love how Darwinists use "the sky is falling!" mythology whenever evolution is scientifically challenged?
Mats, I want to apologize to you for your comments not showing up right away all this time. Your email address has "soma" in it which was triggering our spam filter. There's some drug advertisement spam that uses the word "soma". It took me a while to figure out why I kept seeing your comments in the moderation queue. I removed the word soma from the blacklist. -ds Mats_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply